3.1 One of the aims of the Review was to test the value for money of delivering school provision on a design, build, finance, manage and maintain basis over a long period through the PPP model.
3.2 As shown in the report, when financial analysis of the costs of each comparator group is completed on a service element basis and in the context of the actual service delivered, then there is value for money that can be determined; for example, the schools are compliant and in excellent condition. However, apportioning the value against the higher cost is subjective. Ultimately, when debt costs are incorporated, the level of value for money achieved is likely to be lower.
3.3 When considered on an NPV basis, some costs, like FM Service Delivery to the Pilot PPP Schools, are significantly higher than the service offered to the Conventional Schools; however, there are several compliance failings and inconsistencies of the Conventional Schools with Statutory Requirements, PPM undertakings and good FM practice, as identified in the reporting. None of the same issues were identified with the Pilot PPP Schools which were maintained to an excellent standard and demonstrated full Statutory Compliance and a high level of Contract compliance.
3.4 The benefits referenced above demonstrate that the higher costs provide a higher standard of building and building service but that the higher standards realised may not warrant the associated higher cost. Simply, the value of higher standards achieved may not outweigh the extra cost in the specific PPP reviewed, although it should be noted that further developments in the PPP Market since the Pilot PPP Schools Bundle development, including reductions in the total cost of PPPs, would change this point.